Our Tasks and the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies

A Letter to the Editor[2]

Written:Written on November 2-4 (15-17), 1905Published:First published on November 5, 1940, inPravda, No. 308.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1965,

      Moscow,Volume 10,

      pages17-28.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Comrades,the question of the significance and role of the Soviet of Workers’
    Deputies is now immediately facing the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats and
    the entire proletariat of the capital. I take up my pen to set out
    certain ideas on this burning issue; but before doing so, I consider it
    absolutely necessary to make a most important reservation. I am speaking
    as anonlooker. I still have to write from that accursed
    “afar”, from the hateful “abroad” of an exile. And
    it is all but impossible for anyone to form a correct opinion of
    this concrete, practical matter if he has not been in St. Petersburg, if he
    has never seen the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies or exchanged views with
    comrades on the spot. Therefore I leave it to the discretion of the
    editorial board to publish or not to publish this letter, written by an
    uninformed person. I reserve the right to revise my opinion when I have at
    last had an opportunity of acquainting myself with the matter from something
    more than “paper” information.

Andnow to get down to business. It seems to me that Comrade Radin is
      wrong in raising the question, in No. 5 ofNovaya
      Zhizn[3](I have
      seen only five issues of the virtual Central Organ of our R.S.D.L.P.): the
      Soviet of Workers’ Deputies or the Party? I think that it is wrong to put
      the question in this way and that the decision mustcertainlybe:boththe Soviet of Workers’ Deputiesandthe Party. The
      only question—and a highly important one—is how to divide, and
      how to combine, the tasks of the Soviet and those of the Russian
      Social-Democratic Labour Party.

Ithink it would be inadvisable for the Soviet to adhere wholly to any one
      party. As this opinion will probably surprise the reader, I shall proceed
      straightway to explain my views (stating again and most emphatically that
      it is the opinion of an onlooker).

TheSoviet of Workers’ Deputies came into being through the general strike, in
      connection with the strike, and for its aims. Who led the strike and
      brought it to a victorious close? Thewholeproletariat, which
    includes non-Social-Democrats—fortunately a minority. What were the
    aims of the strike? They were both economic and political. The economic aims
    concerned thewholeproletariat, all workers, and partly even all
    working people, not the wage-workers alone. The political aims concerned all
    the people, or rather all the peoples, of Russia. These aims were to free
    all the peoples of Russia from the yoke of the autocracy, survivals of
    serfdom, a rightless status, and police tyranny.

Letus go further. Should the proletariat continue its economic struggle?
      By all means; there is no disagreement over this point among
      Social-Democrats, nor could there be any. Should this struggle be
      conducted only by the Social-Democrats or only under the
      Social-Democratic banner? I do not think so; I still hold the view I have
      expressed (in entirely different, now outdated conditions, it is true) inWhat Is To Be Done?, namely, that it is inadvisable to limit the
      composition of the trade unions, and hence of those taking part in the
      trade union, economic struggle, to members of the Social-Democratic

				Party.[1]It seems to me that the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, as an
      organisation representing all occupations, shouldstriveto
      include deputies fromallindustrial, professional and office
      workers, domestic servants, farm labourers, etc., fromallwho
      want and are able to fight in common for a better life for the whole
      working people, fromallwho have at least an elementary degree
      of political honesty, from all but the Black Hundreds. As for us
      Social-Democrats, we shall do our best, first, to have all our Party
      organisations represented on all trade unions as fully as possible and,
      secondly, to use the struggle we are waging jointly with our
      fellow-proletarians, irrespective of their views, for the tire less,
      steadfast advocacy of theonlyconsistent, the only truly
      proletarian world outlook,Marxism.To propagate it, to carry on
      this propaganda and agitation work, we shall by all means preserve,
      strengthen and expand our completelyindependent, consistently principled class party of the
      class-conscious proletariat, i.e., the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
      Party. Every step in the proletarian struggle, if inseparably linked with
      our Social-Democratic, methodical and organised, activities, will bring
      themassesof the working class in Russia and the
      Social-Democrats ever closer together.

Thisaspect of the problem, concerning the economic struggle, is
      comparatively simple and hardly gives rise to any particular
      disagreement. But the other aspect, concerning political leadership and
      the political struggle, is a different matter. And yet, at the risk of
      surprising the reader still more, I must say here and now that
      in this respect, too, I think it inadvisable to demand that the
      Soviet of Workers’ Deputies should accept the Social-Democratic programme
      and join the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. It seems to me that
      to lead the political struggle,boththe Soviet
      (reorganisedin a sense to be discussed forth with)andthe Party are, to an equal degree, absolutely necessary.

Imay be wrong, but I believe (on the strength of the incomplete and only
      “paper” information at my disposal) that politically the Soviet of
      Workers’ Deputies should be regarded as the embryo of aprovisional
      revolutionary government. I think the Soviet should proclaim itself
      the provisional revolutionary government of the whole of Russia as early
      as possible, or shouldset upa provisional revolutionary
      government (which would amount to the same thing, only in another form).

Thepolitical struggle has just reached a stage of development where the
      forces of revolution and counter-revolution are roughly equal and where
      the tsar’s government isalreadypowerless to suppress the
      revolution, while the revolution is notyetstrong enough to
      sweep away the Black-Hundred government. The decay of the tsar’s
      government is complete. But even as it rots alive, it is contaminating
      Russia with the poison of its putrefaction. It is absolutely necessary, in
      contrast to the decay of the tsarist, counter revolutionary forces, toorganisethe revolutionary forces at once, immediately, without
      the slightest delay. This organisation has been making splendid progress,
      particularlyof late. This is evident from the formation of contingents of a revolutionary
      army (defence squads, etc.), the rapid development of Social-Democratic
      mass organisations of the proletariat, the establishment of peasants’
      committees by the revolutionary peasantry, and the first free meetings of
      our proletarian brothers in sailor’s or soldier’s uniform, who are paving
      for themselves a strenuous and difficult but true and bright way to
      freedom and to socialism.

Whatis lacking now is the unification of all the genuinely revolutionary
      forces, of all the forces that are already operating in revolutionary
      fashion. What is lacking is an all-Russian political centre, a fresh,
      living centre that is strong because it has struck deep roots in the
      people, a centre that enjoys the absolute confidence of the masses, that
      possesses tireless revolutionary energy and is closely linked with the
      organised revolutionary and socialist parties. Such a centre can be
      established only by the revolutionary proletariat, which has brilliantly
      carried through a political strike, which is now organising an armed
      uprising of the whole people, and which has won half freedom for Russia
      and will yet win full freedom for her.

Thequestion may be asked: Why cannot the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies
      become the embryo of such a centre? Is it because there are not only
      Social-Democrats in the Soviet? But this is an advantage, not a
      disadvantage. We have been speaking all the time of the need of a militant
      alliance of Social-Democrats and revolutionary bourgeois democrats. We
      have been speaking of it, and the workers have actually done
      it. It is splendid that they have done it. When I read inNovaya
      Zhizna letter fromworker comradeswho belong to the
      Socialist-Revolutionary Party,[4]and who protest against the Soviet being
      included in one of the parties, I could not help thinking that those
      worker comrades were right in many practical respects. It goes without
      saying that our views differ from theirs, and that a merger of
      Social-Democrats and Socialist-Revolutionaries is out of the question, but
      then there is no suggestion of it. We are deeply convinced that those
      workers who share Socialist-Revolutionary views and yet are fighting
      within the ranks of the proletariat are inconsistent, for they retain
      non-proletarian views while championing a truly proletarian cause. Their
      inconsistencywe must combat, from the ideological point of view, with the
      greatest determination, but in so doing we must see to
      it that the revolutionary cause, a vital, burning, living cause that is
      recognised by all and has brought all honest people together, does not
      suffer. We still consider the views of the Socialist-Revolutionaries to be
      revolutionary-democratic and not socialist. But for the sake of our
      militant aims, we must march together while fully retaining Party
      independence,

and the Soviet i,and must be, a militant organisation. To
      expel devoted and honest revolutionary democrats at a time when we are
      carrying out a democratic revolution would be absurd, it would be
      folly. We shall have no difficulty in overcoming their inconsistency, for
      our views are supported by history itself, are supported at every step by
      reality. If our pamphlet has not taught them Social-Democracy, our
      revolution will. To be sure, those workers who remain Christians, who
      believe in God, and those intellectuals who defend mysticism (fie upon
      them!), are inconsistent too; but we shall not expel them from the Soviet
      or even from the Party, for it is our firm conviction that the actual
      struggle, and work within the ranks, will convince all elements possessing
      vitality that Marxism is the truth, and will cast aside all those who lack
      vitality. And we do not for one moment doubt our strength, the
      overwhelming strength of Marxists, in the Russian Social-Democratic
      Labour Party.

Tomy mind, the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, as a revolutionary centre
      providing political leadership, is not too broad an organisation but, on
      the contrary, a much too narrow one. The Soviet must proclaim itself the
      provisional revolutionary government, or form such a government, and must
      by all means enlist to this end the participation of new deputies not only
      from the workers, but, first of all, from the sailors and soldiers, who
      are everywhere seeking freedom; secondly, from the revolutionary
      peasantry, and thirdly, from the revolutionary bourgeois
      intelligentsia. The Soviet must select a strong nucleus for the
      provisional revolutionary government and reinforce it with
      representatives
      of all revolutionary parties and all revolutionary (but, of course,
      only revolutionary and not liberal) democrats. We are not afraid of so
      broad and mixed a composition—indeed,we want it, for unless the proletariat and the peasantry
      unite and unless the Social-Democrats and revolutionary democrats form a
      fighting alliance, the great Russian revolution cannot be fully
      successful. It will be a temporary alliance that is to fulfil clearly
      defined immediate practical tasks, while the more important interests of
      the socialist proletariat, its fundamental interests and ultimate goals,
      will be steadfastly upheld by the independent and consistently principled
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.

Theobjection may be raised that if the composition is broad and mixed, it
      will be hardly possible to establish a centre solid and united enough to
      exercise practical leadership. I shall answer that with a question: What
      are the lessons of the October revolution?[5]Did not the strike
      committee provein factto be the generally recognised centre,
      the real government? And would not that committee readily admit into its
      ranks representatives of that section of the unions and of the
      “Union of Unions”[6]which is really revolutionary
      and really supports the proletariat in its relentless struggle for
      freedom? The essential thing is that the main, purely proletarian body of
      the provisional revolutionary government should be strong and that for,
      say, hundreds of workers, sailors, soldiers and peasants there should be
      dozens of deputies from the unions of the revolutionary intelligentsia. I
      believe the proletarians will soon be able in practice to establish the
      proper ratio.

Theobjection may be raised that it is hardly possible to advance for such
      a government a programme complete enough to ensure victory for the
      revolution and broad enough to make possible a fighting alliance free from
      all reservations, vagueness, reticence or hypocrisy. I shall answer: such
      a programme has already been advanced in full by reality. It is already
      recognised in principle by all the politically- conscious elements of
      absolutely all the classes and sections of the population, including even
      Orthodox priests. The complete realisation of political freedom, which the
      tsar has promised so hypocritically, should come first in this
      programme. The repeal of all legislation restricting freedom of speech,
      conscience, assembly, the press, association and strikes, and the
      abolition of all institutionslimiting these liberties, should be immediate and real, they should be
      guaranteed and actually put into practice. The programme should provide
      for the convocation of a national constituent assembly that would enjoy
      the support of a free and armed people and have full authority and
      strength to establish a new order in Russia. It should provide for the
      arming of the people. The necessity of arming the people is realised by
      all. What remains to be done is to complete and unify the work already
      begun and being carried on every where. The programme of the provisional
      revolutionary government should also provide for the immediate granting
      of real and full freedom to the nationalities oppressed by the tsarist
      monster. A free Russia has been born. The proletariat is at its post. It
      will not allow heroic Poland to be crushed again. It will itself go into
      action; it will fight both for a free Russia and a free Poland, not only
      by peaceful strikes, but by force of arms as well. The programme should
      provide for the eight-hour working day, which the workers are already
      “seizing”, and for other urgent measures to curb capitalist
      exploitation.. Lastly, the programme must necessarily include transfer of
      all the land to the peasants, support for every revolutionary measure that
      the peasantry is carrying out to take away all the land (without, of
      course, supporting the illusion of “equalised” small land
      tenure), and the establishment everywhere of revolutionary peasants’
      committees, which have already begun to take shape spontaneously.

Whobut the Black Hundreds and the Black-Hundred government will deny
      today the pressing character and practical indispensability of this
      programme? In fact, even bourgeois liberals are willing to accept it in
      theory! As for us, we must put it into practice with the help of the
      forces of the revolutionary people; to do this, we must unite those forces
      as speedily as possible through the proletariat pro claiming a provisional
      revolutionary government. True, only an armed uprising can really form the
      basis of such a government. But the projected government will in fact be
      theorganof this growing and already maturing uprising. The
      formation of a revolutionary government could not be initiated in practice
      until the insurrection had assumed proportions evident to all, proportions
      that were, so tospeak, tangible to all. But now is the time to unify this uprising politically,
      to organise it, to give it a clear-cut programme, to turn
    all the contingents of the revolutionary army, which are already numerous
    and are growing fast in strength, into the mainstay and into instruments of
    this new, truly free and truly popular government. The struggle is imminent,
    the uprising inevitable, and the decisive battle close at hand. It is time
    to issue a direct challenge, to set the organised power of the proletariat
    against the decaying tsarist regime, to address to the whole
    people a manifesto on behalf of the provisional revolutionary government
    constituted by the foremost workers.

Itis now obvious to us that among the revolutionary people there can be
      found persons capable of accomplishing this great task, persons thoroughly
      devoted to the revolution, and more important still, persons of tireless,
      inexhaustible energy. It is now obvious to us that there exist the
      elements of a revolutionary army, which will back this cause, and that all
      who are fair-minded and alert and politically-conscious in every class of
      the population will turn away completely from tsarism when the new
      government declares a decisive war on the dying semi-feudal, police state
      of Russia.

Citizens—itwould be proper to say in that declaration of war, in
      that manifesto of the revolutionary government— citizens, make your
      choice! There we have the whole of old Russia, all the sinister forces of
      exploitation, oppression, and violence against man. And here we have a
      union of free citizens who have equal rights in all affairs of the
      state. There we have a union of exploiters, of the wealthy, of
      policemen. And here we have a union of all working people, of all the vital
      forces of the people, of all fair-minded intellectuals. There we have the
      Black Hundreds, here we have the organised workers fighting for freedom,
      for education, for socialism.

Makeyour choice, citizens! Here is our programme, which has long since
      been put forward by the whole people. These are our aims in the name of
      which we declare war on the Black-Hundred government. We are not trying to
      impose on the people any innovations thought up by us; we are merely
      taking the initiative in bringing about that withoutwhich it is impossible to live in Russia any longer, as is acknowledged
      generally and unanimously. We do not shut ourselves off from the
      revolutionary people but submit to their judgement every step and every,
      decision we take. We rely fully and solely on the free initiative of the
      working masses themselves. We unite absolutely all revolutionary parties,
      and we call into our ranks deputies from every group of the population
      that is willing to fight for freedom, for our programme, which guarantees
      the elementary rights and meets the elementary needs of the people. In
      particular, we hold out our hand to our worker comrades in soldier’s
      uniform and to our peasant brothers, so that we may fight together to the
      end against the yoke of the landlords and the bureaucrats, for land and
      freedom.

Preparefor the decisive struggle, citizens! We will not allow the
      Black-Hundred government to use violence against Russia. We will not be
      deluded by the replacement of a few bureaucrats or by the resignation of a
      few police officers while the whole mass of Black-Hundred police retains
      the power to kill, plunder and commit outrages against the people. Let the
      liberal bourgeois stoop to pleading with that Black-Hundred
      government. The Black Hundreds laugh when anyone threatens them with trial
      in the very same old tsarist court by the very same old tsarist
      officials. We shall order our army units to arrest the Black-Hundred
      heroes who fuddle ignorant people with vodka and corrupt them; we shall
      commit all those monsters, such as the chief of police in Kronstadt, for
      public, revolutionary trial by the whole people.

Citizens,everyone but the Black Hundreds has turned away from the tsarist
      government. Rally, then, behind the revolutionary government, stop paying
      any duties or taxes, and bend all your energies to organise and arm a free
      people’s militia force. Russia will have genuine freedom only insofar as
      the revolutionary people gain the upper hand over the forces of the
      Black-Hundred government. There are not, and cannot be, any neutrals in a
      civil war. The white-flag party is sheer cowardly hypocrisy. Whoever shies
      away from the struggle bolsters up Black-Hundred rule. Who is not for the
      revolution is against the revolution. Who is not a revolutionary is one of
      the Black Hundreds.

Weundertake to rally and train forces for an uprising of the people. Let there
      not be a trace left of the institutions of tsarist power in Russia by the
      anniversary of that great day, the Ninth of January.[7]May the spring holiday of the world proletariat find Russia already a
      free country, with a
      freely convened constituent assembly of the whole people!

Thatis how I visualise the development of the Soviet of Workers’
Deputies into a provisional revolutionary government. And these first
and foremost are the tasks that

I would set all our Party organisations, all
class-conscious workers, the Soviet itself, the workers’ forthcoming
congress in Moscow, and the congress of the Peasant Union.[8]

[1]See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 451-67.—Ed.

[2]“Our Tasks and the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies”—an article
appraising the Soviets for the first time as an organ of insurrection and
    the rudiments of a new revolutionary power. It was written by Lenin early in
    November 1905 In Stockholm, where he stayed for a while on his way back to
    Russia from exile. He contributed the article toNovaya Zhizn,
    which, however, did not publish it. The manuscript was not discovered until
    the autumn of 1940.

[3]Novaya Zhizn(New Life)—the first legal
Bolshevik newspaper, published daily from October 27 (November 9) to December 3
(16), 1905, in St. Petersburg. Lenin became the editor of the paper upon his
return to Russia early in November 1905. The paper was the virtual Central Organ
of the R.S.D.L.P. V. V. Vorovsky, M. S. Olminsky and A. V. Lunacharsky were
closely associated with the paper, and Maxim Gorky contributed articles and
appreciable funds.

Thepaper had a circulation of up to 80,000 though it was constantly
persecuted, 15 issues out of 27 being confiscated and destroyed. It was closed
by the government after issue No. 27; issue No. 27, which was the last, appeared
illegally.

[4]Socialist-Revolutionary Party—a petty-bourgeois party in Russia,
which arose at the end of 1901 and beginning of 1902 as a result of the
amalgamation of various Narodnik groups and circles (Socialist-Revolutionary
Union, Socialist-Revolutionary Party, etc.). The newspaperRevolutsionnaya
Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia) (1900-05) and the magazineVestnik
Russkoi Revolutsii (Herald of the Russian Revolution) (1901-05) became its
official organs. The Socialist-Revolutionaries did not see the class
distinctions between the proletarian and the small proprietor They glossed over
the class differentiation and contradictions within the peasantry, and rejected
the proletariat’s leading role in the revolution. Their views were an eclectic
mixture of the ideas of Narodism and revisionism; they tried, as Lenin put it,
to patch up “the rents in the Narodnik ideas with bits of fashionable
opportunist ’criticism’ of Marxism” (see present edition, Vol. 9,
p. 310). The tactics of individual terrorism, which the
Socialist-Revolutionaries advocated as the basic method of struggle against the
autocracy, did much harm to the revolutionary movement and made it difficult to
organise the masses for the revolutionary struggle.

Theagrarian programme of the Socialist-Revolutionaries envisaged the abolition
of private landownership and transfer ofthe land to the village communities on the basis of the “labour
      principle”, “equalised” tenure, and the development of
      co-operatives. There was nothing socialist in this programme, which the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries described as a programme for “socialising
      the land”.

TheBolshevik Party exposed the Socialist-Revolutionaries’ attempts to pose as
socialists; it waged a stubborn struggle against the Socialist-Revolutionaries
to gain influence over the peasantry, and revealed the harmful effect which
their tactics of individual terrorism had on the working-class movement. At the
same time, on definite conditions, the Bolsheviks concluded temporary agreements
with the Socialist-Revolutionaries in the struggle against tsarism.

Inanalysing the Socialist-Revolutionary programme, Lenin showed that if
commodity production and private farming on commonly-owned land were preserved,
the rule of capital could not he eliminated nor the labouring peasantry
delivered from exploitation and ruin. He also showed that co-operatives
functioning under capitalist system could not save the small peasant, since they
served to enrich the rural bourgeoisie. At the same time Lenin pointed out that
the demand for equalised land tenure, while not socialist, was historically
progressive, revolutionary-democratic in character, being directed against
reactionary landlordism.

Thefact that the peasantry did not constitute a homogeneous class accounted for
the political and ideological instability of and organisational confusion among
the Socialist-Revolutionaries and for their constant wavering between the
liberal bourgeoisie and the proletariat. There was a split in the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party as early as the period of the first Russian
revolution. Its Right wing formed the legal Labour Popular-Socialist Party,
which held views close to those of the Cadets; the Left wing became the semi-
anarchist league of “Maximalists”. During the Stolypin reaction the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party experienced a complete ideological and
organisational break-up, and the First World War saw most
Socialist-Revolutionaries adopt social-chauvinist views.

Afterthe victory of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution in1917the Socialist-Revolutionaries, together with the Mensheviks and
Cadets, were the mainstay of the counter-revolutionary bourgeois-landlord
Provisional Government, which included leaders of their party, Kerensky,
Avksentyev and Chernov. The Socialist-Revolutionary Party refused to support
the peasants’ demand for abolishing landlordism, and indeed, advocated its
maintenance. Socialist-Revolutionary Ministers of the Provisional Government sent
punitive expeditions against the peasants who seized landed estates. Late in
November1917, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries founded an
independent party. To retain their influence among the peasant masses, they
recognised Soviet power in form and entered into an agreement with the
Bolsheviks, but soon began to fight against Soviet power.

Duringthe years of foreign military intervention and civil war the
Socialist-Revolutionaries carried on counter-revolutionary subversive
activities, vigorously supported the interventionistsand whiteguard generals, took part in counter-revolutionary plots, and organised
terrorist acts against Soviet statesmen and Communist Party leaders. After the
Civil War, they continued their activities against the Soviet state within the
country and
whiteguard émigrés.

[5]The reference is to the all-Russian political strike in October
 1905.

[6]The Union of Unions—a political organisation of the
liberal-bourgeois intelligentsia. It was founded in May 1905 at the
first congress of 14
associations of lawyers, writers, doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. The
congress demanded the convocation of a constituent assembly by universal
suffrage. In July 1905 the Union declared for boycotting the Bulygin Duma; but
before long it abandoned that stand, and decided to take part in the Duma
elections. By the end of 1900 the Union had fallen apart.

[7]On January 9, 1905, by order of the tsar, the troops fired on a peaceful
demonstration of St. Petersburg unarmed workers who marched with their wives and
children to the Winter Palace to present a petition to the tsar describing their
intolerable conditions and utter lack of rights. This massacre of unarmed
workers started a wave of mass political strikes and demonstrations all over
Russia under the slogan “Down with the autocracy!” The events of January 9
marked the beginning of the 1905-07 revolution.

[8]All-Russian Peasant Union—a revolutionary-democratic
organisation founded in 1905. Its programme and tactics were elaborated at its first
and second congresses, held in Moscow in August and November 1905. The Union
demanded political freedom and the immediate convocation of a constituent
assembly. It adopted the tactics of boycotting the First State Duma. Its
agrarian programme provided for the abolition of private landownership and for
transfer of the lands belonging to monasteries, the Church, the Crown and the
government to the peasants without compensation. The Union pursued a half-way
and erratic policy; while demanding abolition of the landed estates, it agreed
to partial compensation of the landlords. An object of police reprisals from the
first, it had ceased to exist by the end of 1906.